ClamRussel wrote:Thats assuming it was "taken" away and not traded away for a golden ticket. Bertuzzi, Brian Burke and Vancouver Canucks are certain to argue that point. Did he make an honest attempt to return? ...or did he hop on the lawsuit train a tad prematurely? If I recall correctly, there was a window of opportunity to have it heard in Colorado so he went for it, even though that wasn't successful.

I'm not a football fan, but people on here compared his injury to several that happened in that sport. In all the cases mentioned the players were able to return, one guy the same season. Lets also not forget it was Lacroix who had him "airlifted" out of Vancouver then propped him up for the press conference in a neck brace and also threw out the misleading"broken neck" claim. Imo, all Lacroix wanted was to use Moore to ensure Bertuzzi was gone for the playoffs. Mission accomplished. It would have happened anyway, but Lacroix turned this thing into a 3-ring circus and started Moore off on the wrong path. After he was used up Lacroix tossed him out like last week's newspaper.

I have no idea what Lacroix's BS moves have to do with anything regarding Moore's right to litigation. It was almost as entertaining as the tears Bertuzzi shed though. The "broken neck" crap was embarrassing to hockey and a ridiculous stunt. The "long arm of the law" crap was a ridiculous stunt. Neither however prevent Moore from having the right to pursue compensation. I have no idea if Moore make a real attempt to return. But if he is STILL suffering from PCS then he shouldn't even be trying.

As for comparing injuries, that doesn't interest me. It's a brain injury. Maybe having one that works well makes it tougher to recover. I just don't buy the idea that a guy who plays hockey his whole life and finally makes the NHL would decide to not go back to roll the legal dice. I understand why some Canucks fans hold on dearly to the idea that Moore is the villain in this story. Remember the kids at the courthouse holding "Free Bertuzzi" signs? Those are the people I think of. I can't believe so many of them are members here.

I get it though, if anyone here has their life forever altered by a criminally negligent act, they'd just walk it off. Old time hockey!!!

Not about his "right," but it goes a long ways to explain why Moore went down this lawsuit road as opposed to rehabilitation, in other words, the high road. We can reasonably guess the pressure he had from Lacroix (based on what we know publicly from the stunts) to remain out & play it up to its fullest extreme. It was theatre and bad theatre at that. Lacroix had no interest in bringing Moore back. I can only imagine the pressure that he had on him from his parents and lawyer. The cherry on top is the parents expecting a settlement.

ClamRussel wrote:Thats assuming it was "taken" away and not traded away for a golden ticket. Bertuzzi, Brian Burke and Vancouver Canucks are certain to argue that point. Did he make an honest attempt to return? ...or did he hop on the lawsuit train a tad prematurely? If I recall correctly, there was a window of opportunity to have it heard in Colorado so he went for it, even though that wasn't successful.

I'm not a football fan, but people on here compared his injury to several that happened in that sport. In all the cases mentioned the players were able to return, one guy the same season. Lets also not forget it was Lacroix who had him "airlifted" out of Vancouver then propped him up for the press conference in a neck brace and also threw out the misleading"broken neck" claim. Imo, all Lacroix wanted was to use Moore to ensure Bertuzzi was gone for the playoffs. Mission accomplished. It would have happened anyway, but Lacroix turned this thing into a 3-ring circus and started Moore off on the wrong path. After he was used up Lacroix tossed him out like last week's newspaper.

I have no idea what Lacroix's BS moves have to do with anything regarding Moore's right to litigation. It was almost as entertaining as the tears Bertuzzi shed though. The "broken neck" crap was embarrassing to hockey and a ridiculous stunt. The "long arm of the law" crap was a ridiculous stunt. Neither however prevent Moore from having the right to pursue compensation. I have no idea if Moore make a real attempt to return. But if he is STILL suffering from PCS then he shouldn't even be trying.

As for comparing injuries, that doesn't interest me. It's a brain injury. Maybe having one that works well makes it tougher to recover. I just don't buy the idea that a guy who plays hockey his whole life and finally makes the NHL would decide to not go back to roll the legal dice. I understand why some Canucks fans hold on dearly to the idea that Moore is the villain in this story. Remember the kids at the courthouse holding "Free Bertuzzi" signs? Those are the people I think of. I can't believe so many of them are members here.

I get it though, if anyone here has their life forever altered by a criminally negligent act, they'd just walk it off. Old time hockey!!!

Not about his "right," but it goes a long ways to explain why Moore went down this lawsuit road as opposed to rehabilitation, in other words, the high road. We can reasonably guess the pressure he had from Lacroix (based on what we know publicly from the stunts) to remain out & play it up to its fullest extreme. It was theatre and bad theatre at that. Lacroix had no interest in bringing Moore back. I can only imagine the pressure that he had on him from his parents and lawyer. The cherry on top is the parents expecting a settlement.

I admit, I do not see the link between filing a lawsuit not trying to get healthy. Are the two mutually exclusive? While I agree the Lacroix broken neck scenario was theatrical, it certainly isn't abnormal for a player that seriously injured to appear publicly after out of the hospital.

Fred wrote:dhabums who ever you are, you're making visiting this forum a real pain in the a$$, who the Hell are you to decide who's correct or not, who appointed you. Get over yourself, there's no pleasure posting when you decide to sensor others and make some snide comments

In the future, I will be more constructive when addressing your truths. My apologies, I am used to a board where feelings are not so easily hurt. I hope this will suffice, I won't be responding to the PM's you keep sending.

Steve Moore does not need to prove 100% that the concussion happened when a 230 lb man sucker punched him unconscious from behind any more than he needs to show that the fight with Cooke didn't cause the injuries. The reason Moore was lying motionless and bleeding on the ice is what you should pay attention to.

dhabums wrote:In the future, I will be more constructive when addressing your truths. My apologies, I am used to a board where feelings are not so easily hurt. I hope this will suffice, I won't be responding to the PM's you keep sending.

.

Fred didn't send me to PM you, you sent me. Everyone will respect the rules Brian has set out or they will be gone.

Fred wrote:dhabums who ever you are, you're making visiting this forum a real pain in the a$$, who the Hell are you to decide who's correct or not, who appointed you. Get over yourself, there's no pleasure posting when you decide to sensor others and make some snide comments

In the future, I will be more constructive when addressing your truths. My apologies, I am used to a board where feelings are not so easily hurt. I hope this will suffice, I won't be responding to the PM's you keep sending.

Steve Moore does not need to prove 100% that the concussion happened when a 230 lb man sucker punched him unconscious from behind any more than he needs to show that the fight with Cooke didn't cause the injuries. The reason Moore was lying motionless and bleeding on the ice is what you should pay attention to.

Let me just say this, the message I was trying to send was still showing in my outbox and there was no record of it showing in my sent message. In fact I thought I had failed to reach you.

As to Bertuzzi we all know what happened, I was in fact at the game that evening. But the game and incident aside I thought in court there needed to be a clear cut proof that person "A" had clearly damaged person "B" but I could be wrong. We all know what may have caused the incident to occur in general but can they prove that it was the punch that actually did the damage. Surely that is what must be shown for the judge to rule ?? Maybe you can help on this point can a judge rule for instance that a person is partially to blame in a civil suit or must it be one way or the other ?

dhabums wrote:I have no idea what Lacroix's BS moves have to do with anything regarding Moore's right to litigation. It was almost as entertaining as the tears Bertuzzi shed though. The "broken neck" crap was embarrassing to hockey and a ridiculous stunt. The "long arm of the law" crap was a ridiculous stunt. Neither however prevent Moore from having the right to pursue compensation. I have no idea if Moore make a real attempt to return. But if he is STILL suffering from PCS then he shouldn't even be trying.

As for comparing injuries, that doesn't interest me. It's a brain injury. Maybe having one that works well makes it tougher to recover. I just don't buy the idea that a guy who plays hockey his whole life and finally makes the NHL would decide to not go back to roll the legal dice. I understand why some Canucks fans hold on dearly to the idea that Moore is the villain in this story. Remember the kids at the courthouse holding "Free Bertuzzi" signs? Those are the people I think of. I can't believe so many of them are members here.

I get it though, if anyone here has their life forever altered by a criminally negligent act, they'd just walk it off. Old time hockey!!!

Not about his "right," but it goes a long ways to explain why Moore went down this lawsuit road as opposed to rehabilitation, in other words, the high road. We can reasonably guess the pressure he had from Lacroix (based on what we know publicly from the stunts) to remain out & play it up to its fullest extreme. It was theatre and bad theatre at that. Lacroix had no interest in bringing Moore back. I can only imagine the pressure that he had on him from his parents and lawyer. The cherry on top is the parents expecting a settlement.

I admit, I do not see the link between filing a lawsuit not trying to get healthy. Are the two mutually exclusive? While I agree the Lacroix broken neck scenario was theatrical, it certainly isn't abnormal for a player that seriously injured to appear publicly after out of the hospital.

By declaring himself healthy to return, it does effectively kill his lawsuit dead in its path while not guaranteeing him that any team would employ his services (especially after his actions). The link is there and its potentially worth millions.

Fred wrote:dhabums who ever you are, you're making visiting this forum a real pain in the a$$, who the Hell are you to decide who's correct or not, who appointed you. Get over yourself, there's no pleasure posting when you decide to sensor others and make some snide comments

In the future, I will be more constructive when addressing your truths. My apologies, I am used to a board where feelings are not so easily hurt. I hope this will suffice, I won't be responding to the PM's you keep sending.

Steve Moore does not need to prove 100% that the concussion happened when a 230 lb man sucker punched him unconscious from behind any more than he needs to show that the fight with Cooke didn't cause the injuries. The reason Moore was lying motionless and bleeding on the ice is what you should pay attention to.

Let me just say this, the message I was trying to send was still showing in my outbox and there was no record of it showing in my sent message. In fact I thought I had failed to reach you.As to Bertuzzi we all know what happened, I was in fact at the game that evening. But the game and incident aside I thought in court there needed to be a clear cut proof that person "A" had clearly damaged person "B" but I could be wrong. We all know what may have caused the incident to occur in general but can they prove that it was the punch that actually did the damage. Surely that is what must be shown for the judge to rule ?? Maybe you can help on this point can a judge rule for instance that a person is partially to blame in a civil suit or must it be one way or the other ?

I am only guessing myself but since Moore's lawsuit includes the Canucks, Brian Burke, Marc Crawford and Bertuzzi, I'm thinking that Moore has to prove there was more than a wild punch that had catastrophic consequences, he has to show that it was premeditated and each of the defendants contributed to an attack that left him in a reduced capacity. I don't think that it matters what exact moment did the damage, the punch or the dog pile immediately after would just be the gun, its who pulled the trigger that is what Moore needs to show so that he can get damages from them. At the end of the day, if I am the judge I would hold my nose, take into account what a comparable player would make in an average year and factor out an average career (5 yrs) and tag each defendant with the bill.

It's ludicrous that this thing is still going on. Whatever happened to swift and speedy?

That being said, I can see both sides on this.

Moore was suckerpunched, which is not a part of hockey imho, got injured and his career went down the drain. He was not a star player, but even the bench warmers make good money at this level, so I think it's fair to say he lost out financially because of this. In the best of worlds, the NHL should have insurance coverage that took care of this. Apparently the insurance money does not cover what Moore feels he ha slost, and so I guess it can be fair for him to try to get retribution from Bertuzzi/the Canucks.

Bertuzzi, on the other hand, stood up for a team mate and close friend that had been head hunted by Moore. Moore, who was a second rate player took out the major star and captain on the Canucks team with an illegal hit (interference) that gave Näslund a concussion and an elbow injury. I think it is only fair to say that Näslund after the Moore hit never again managed to play at the level of Näslund before the Moore hit.

A sucker punch is not part of the game, nor the code, but Moore avoided to fight him, and Bertuzzi had a score he wanted to even. Unfortunately a number of things (the stick, the dog pile) lead to the outcome of the attack becoming far worse than I'm sure Todd had intended. I'm sure Todd wanted to hurt Moore, but I doubt he wanted to injure him.

But that shouldn't let him off the hook. We are all responsible for our actions, and we will be liable even when we accidentily damage someone/something. Sure, whether something is intentional or not should factor in, but just because it is unintentional doesn't mean you walk free.

Let Moore have his day in court. And I think it's fair if he's awarded something, but not ridiculous money. The guy has a Harvard education and should be able to find employment that helps him pay the bills.And in all fairness, Moore must be aware of that when a fringe player knocks out the opposing teams best player and captain with an illegal hit, there will be retribution. That he suffered some fractured vertebrae when that retribution came was unfortunate and should not be expected, and that's why I think it's fair he gets some compensation, even if he won't get our compassion.

He himself was responsible for Näslund's game going downhill, but let's face it; Näslund still made good money, and an interference is not quite the same thing as a sucker punch. There's no way a court would grant Näslund any money for that infraction. Yet I still think Moore should keep this in mind.

ukcanuck wrote:I am only guessing myself but since Moore's lawsuit includes the Canucks, Brian Burke, Marc Crawford and Bertuzzi, I'm thinking that Moore has to prove there was more than a wild punch that had catastrophic consequences, he has to show that it was premeditated and each of the defendants contributed to an attack that left him in a reduced capacity. I don't think that it matters what exact moment did the damage, the punch or the dog pile immediately after would just be the gun, its who pulled the trigger that is what Moore needs to show so that he can get damages from them. At the end of the day, if I am the judge I would hold my nose, take into account what a comparable player would make in an average year and factor out an average career (5 yrs) and tag each defendant with the bill.

The guy was 26, making league minimum, or close to it ($425k), and had 12 points in 68 games. Given the lockout, he would have been lucky to sign another contract at any level. I don't know what he received so far, but I can't see how anything more than $1mil can be justified, as that would likely be way more then he would ever earn playing another 3 or 4 years in Europe or other 2nd tier hockey league. Ad in 50 bucks for pain ans suffering, and take away 6 bucks for being an ass leaves it at a cool $1,000,044 total.

Tciso wrote:The guy was 26, making league minimum, or close to it ($425k), and had 12 points in 68 games. Given the lockout, he would have been lucky to sign another contract at any level. I don't know what he received so far, but I can't see how anything more than $1mil can be justified, as that would likely be way more then he would ever earn playing another 3 or 4 years in Europe or other 2nd tier hockey league. Ad in 50 bucks for pain ans suffering, and take away 6 bucks for being an ass leaves it at a cool $1,000,044 total.

I think ending the award with the $44 is just adding insult to injury.

Jovorock wrote:Fred didn't send me to PM you, you sent me. Everyone will respect the rules Brian has set out or they will be gone.

This is canuckscorner.com, it is not the other CC board.

Just an observation, but if you frown on condescending tones and pot-shot like comments, it's probably not best to use that tone or make those types of comments yourself.

Maybe I missed something, but Fred admits to PMing dhbaums multiple times, likely by mistake, and dhbaums comment was directed at Fred and not you.

This dichotomy between this CC and the former CC is being perpetuated by original Corner posters for the most part. There's no concerted effort to undercut any Corner user, the debates are strictly motivated by the topics at hand and not some ulterior motive.

If you don't like that division, making subtly snide and condescending comments doesn't help new posters get acclimated to what's acceptable on this board.

Jovorock wrote:Fred didn't send me to PM you, you sent me. Everyone will respect the rules Brian has set out or they will be gone.

This is canuckscorner.com, it is not the other CC board.

Just an observation, but if you frown on condescending tones and pot-shot like comments, it's probably not best to use that tone or make those types of comments yourself.

Maybe I missed something, but Fred admits to PMing dhbaums multiple times, likely by mistake, and dhbaums comment was directed at Fred and not you.

This dichotomy between this CC and the former CC is being perpetuated by original Corner posters for the most part. There's no concerted effort to undercut any Corner user, the debates are strictly motivated by the topics at hand and not some ulterior motive.

If you don't like that division, making subtly snide and condescending comments doesn't help new posters get acclimated to what's acceptable on this board.

Look, we have a good group of hockey posters here. We all have our opinions and we all have reasons for our opinions.

Let's keep it friendly, I don't mind a good debate and at times we all get carried away, myself included. We are all Corner posters now, regardless of where we came from. Let's remember that.

I have been a regular here on Corner for a good three years now, going on four, but I also have known a good number of the Central guys and gals for years prior to that. I know that a good number of them are very good hockey posters and have strong opinions. Once we all get over that us vs them mentality, we're off to be a better board. It's training camp and the blood is pumping pretty good here, and I have to credit the former Central posters for a lot of keeping this board going during the summer months. So, let's all respect one another's points of view and keep the debates good natured.

LotusBlossom wrote:I have been a regular here on Corner for a good three years now, going on four, but I also have known a good number of the Central guys and gals for years prior to that. I know that a good number of them are very good hockey posters and have strong opinions. Once we all get over that us vs them mentality, we're off to be a better board. It's training camp and the blood is pumping pretty good here, and I have to credit the former Central posters for a lot of keeping this board going during the summer months. So, let's all respect one another's points of view and keep the debates good natured.

Agreed LB.

I just find the constant reminders that this is "canuckscorner.com, it is not the other CC board" to be misleading, unproductive, and rather condescending since it suggests the other CC board was troublesome and thus taints old Central users as troublesome as well.

It may not be the intention of the mod, but since it's a respected moderator making that post, it only fuels the notion that there's underlying issues motivating former Central posters' debates with anyone on this board. Clearly, the mod's intention is to quell negative tones, but in this case, in my humble opinion, the mod's response only worsens relations and does not go a ways to mending them.

You know there aren't any ulterior motivates encouraging former Centralites to attack Corner users.

I can see what the intention is, and I'm not causing a stir or trying to rile anyone up, I'm just pointing out that those types of responses will not help make this board any better, and some may feel alienated when they see a mod and other veteran Corner posters making those types of comments, which only leads to more division.

coco_canuck wrote:I just find the constant reminders that this is "canuckscorner.com, it is not the other CC board" to be misleading, unproductive, and rather condescending since it suggests the other CC board was troublesome and thus taints old Central users as troublesome as well.

It may not be the intention of the mod, but since it's a respected moderator making that post, it only fuels the notion that there's underlying issues motivating former Central posters' debates with anyone on this board. Clearly, the mod's intention is to quell negative tones, but in this case, in my humble opinion, the mod's response only worsens relations and does not go a ways to mending them.

You know there aren't any ulterior motivates encouraging former Centralites to attack Corner users.

I can see what the intention is, and I'm not causing a stir or trying to rile anyone up, I'm just pointing out that those types of responses will not help make this board any better, and some may feel alienated when they see a mod and other veteran Corner posters making those types of comments, which only leads to more division.

How other boards operate, is their business , if personal attacks are allowed on the other CC board then that's fine. But personal attack are not allowed on this board. I don't make the rules, I follow them.

Keep your friends and your enemies very closeYou never know when you might have to stab one of them in the back!